I agree, they should do a rome 2 total war but like empire total war in the sense of multiple areas of conflict because huge amount of stuff was happening in persia, china, india and mongolia at the same time of the rise of the roman empire. Also they shoudn't clump together the greek cities into one nation, because the greeks were always fighting. True there was the the two main alliances, One headed by Sparta and the other by Athens but there deffinitly should be more detail into the greeks
I agree, but as slydessertfox says, the things in other areas of the world need to be put in by expansion packs, so that they be more detailed.
ok, i have an idea what you could only play in one of the theaters of conflict. here me out, since transportation at the time was very limited a roman could not realisticly get to india or china and vice versa so what if you could play as one of the countires in one of the theaters of conflict. there would be 3 main theaters; europe/north africa persia/india china/mongolia that would be my solution.
Hell no, Apache Total War is what I'm backing. And then you get destroyed by Europeans at the end of the game.
Well sorta but its just there in the middle east and the crusaders can be like the mongols in Medieval 2, theyc an attack but just leave the city in ruins. Though there COULD be an option to ally with them. I just want it to be the start of when it was first being colonized and there are small tribes with 1 or 2 territories.
I thought I already had a poll on this. Rome 2 was the favorite. But mongols... I foresee too much cavspam in multiplayer. Sorry, it's a really good idea, but i doubt the factions would be balanced, like in the first AoE when nobody played as anyone but Rome.
